AT&T to Offer Internet TV on Apple TV?

[wyatt23]

I just swung over to engadget and on the front page was this like about AT&T and Apple partnering for possible IPTV!

w00000t!

http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/31/atandt-planning-iptv-for-apple-tv-in-2008/

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Engadget claims (http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/31/atandt-planning-iptv-for-apple-tv-in-2008/) that AT&T is working on plans to offer IPTV (Internet Protocol TV) through the Apple TV:A well-connected source tells us that AT&T and Apple are working on adding IPTV capabilities to the Apple TV beginning sometime next year. (A launch window hasn't yet been determined, our source says that plans are still being worked out.)
Few details are available, but AT&T does offer a form of IPTV with its limited U-Verse service (https://uverse1.att.com/launchAMSS.do) now. Whether this represents full TV programming through the Apple TV, or simply on-demand programming, remains unclear.

Apple did recently announce added functionality to the Apple TV, in the form of YouTube video support to be launched in June.

[drewyboy]

BOOOOO!!! I don't want to have to pay...Apple..let me hook up through the base computer to internet tv! or at least sell a antenna that connects through the usb port!

[darwen]

Didnt Steve just say yesterday that people are not buying into this technology?

[wyatt23]

he said he didn't want to make a set-top box meaning a box like the ones you get from your cable provider. He didn't want all the various nuances like cablescards and [i can't remember the other technology he said]. It got complicated for them to develop. However, with something like IPTV it's all under their control.

Get the service, send it to the appletv. they already added support for youtube, i don't see how another firmware update couldn't allow for the addition of IPTV as well.

PLUS, microsoft is going to add IPTV to Xbox360 sometime in the near future, and they too will be through a firmware update.

i think apple may have more tricks up their sleeve.

[Martin C]

Didnt Steve just say yesterday that people are not buying into this technology?
Well with the addition of YouTube to the :apple:tv, it seems more likely now.

[robertnq]

:apple:tv needs DVR functions dammit!!! :mad: then i will buy the damn thing...

[chrisgeleven]

You know, the one thing that holds me back from going the AppleTV route and ditching cable tv is the lack of live content. I can't do without sports (which in my area are all on cable-only channels) and local news.

Wouldn't it be great to subscribe to a limited number of "live" channels? Say ESPN, your local TV networks, NESN, etc.

If ABC.com can stream its shows in "HD" quality with almost no buffering over a cable internet connection, then there is no reason why this can't be done with AppleTV.

[bayportbob]

Didnt Steve just say yesterday that people are not buying into this technology?

i thought that uverse tv needed a decoder box between the network connection and your tube which also includes a hd for tivo like functionality. why would att let an appleTV decode their proprietary packets? :confused:

dunno?

bayport

[G4scott]

Anything I can do to ditch my cable provider would be awesome...

[slffl]

I still don't get the IPTV concept. Won't we need a lot faster connections than current DSL and Cable speeds offer?

[atszyman]

If they're going to offer TV over the net, why not try to partner with Joost as well?

[dashiel]

You know, the one thing that holds me back from going the AppleTV route and ditching cable tv is the lack of live content. I can't do without sports (which in my area are all on cable-only channels) and local news.

Wouldn't it be great to subscribe to a limited number of "live" channels? Say ESPN, your local TV networks, NESN, etc.

If ABC.com can stream its shows in "HD" quality with almost no buffering over a cable internet connection, then there is no reason why this can't be done with AppleTV.

i too would love sports, but sports really need to be live, and that deals with encoding. i don't know that h.264 can be encoded properly in time to broadcast live just yet.

[Ha ze]

This would be awesome, much better then YouTube

[danielwsmithee]

If you ask me there are only two things stopping the :apple: TV from taking off. The first is the lack of HD content. When you can buy HD Movies and TV shows off iTunes that will be huge. The second is how to handle live TV, this could solve the second scenario.

I prefer not having a recorder in the Apple TV, go buy an Elgato device for your Mac and your good to go as far as that is concerned.

[danielwsmithee]

i too would love sports, but sports really need to be live, and that deals with encoding. i don't know that h.264 can be encoded properly in time to broadcast live just yet.Yes it can, just not by a typical computer. It would not be that difficult to create a dedicated FPGA or ASIC to perform live encodes of H.264.

[wyatt23]

DVR, while pretty awesome, isn't the killer feature. live tv is. though, i do have xbox, so when that comes out, i will absolutely buy iptv. though, i'm a fanboy and anti-MS, so i'd rather go with the "just works" mentality over the "we'll spend any amount of money to get your money" mentality.

with that said, i still love my 360.

[~Shard~]

I still don't get the IPTV concept. Won't we need a lot faster connections than current DSL and Cable speeds offer?

Nope. I work for the Service Provider here and we've been running our IPTV service for 5 years now - we were the first in Canada and one of the first in North America to launch our service - we were also the first company in the world to deliver HD over copper over a completely IP-based network (no ATM). :cool: So it is completely possible and feasible - many providers are now taking our lead and developing similar services.

ADSL 2+ technology is adequate enough to offer HD over copper and this fall we're implementing VDSL2 with dual access into the home over 800m loop lengths to deliver 40 Mbps to the customer - plenty of bandwidth for a couple HD sets, other TVs and your High Speed connection. You do require at least ADSL 2+ for HD though - prior to that we were driving 8 Mbps to the home for basic TV and High Speed via ADSL and 1.5 km loop lengths.

In short, IPTV is great and it works! :cool:

[droz]

are you seriously quoting an engadget rumor again? come on!!! Engadget is a total joke. I wouldn't read any truth into anything they say anymore.:mad:

[wyatt23]

Nope. I work for the Service Provider here and we've been running our IPTV service for 5 years now - we were the first in Canada and one of the first in North America to launch our service - we were also the first company in the world to deliver HD over copper over a completely IP-based network (no ATM). :cool: So it is completely possible and feasible - many providers are now taking our lead and developing similar services.

ADSL 2+ technology is adequate enough to offer HD over copper and this fall we're implementing VDSL2 with dual access into the home over 800m loop lengths to deliver 40 Mbps to the customer - plenty of bandwidth for a couple HD sets, other TVs and your High Speed connection. You do require at least ADSL 2+ for HD though - prior to that we were driving 8 Mbps to the home for basic TV and High Speed via ADSL and 1.5 km loop lengths.

In short, IPTV is great and it works! :cool:

what kind of box do you need with your service? do you know any of the inner workings of the device, and connections? i.e. ethernet in -> composite-, s-video-, dvi-, out

[~Shard~]

I've said it in other threads, but I wonder if Apple will explore other options as well such as Joost.... :cool:

[alec]

Wow, perfection addition for the iTV. But I'm not trusting engadget, or any other blog for that matter, until they prove to do something right.

[~Shard~]

what kind of box do you need with your service? do you know any of the inner workings of the device, and connections? i.e. ethernet in -> composite-, s-video-, dvi-, out

We provide our customers with Motorola VIP boxes currently (non-PVR, but that will change this summer) with component, composite and HDMI connections. Yes, it is Ethernet in. CAT5 is required for the 10/100 network although in our new developments as well as fibre we're starting to run CAT7 as well - it only make sense.

[milhous]

Great news.

There's also AT&T Broadband TV (https://att.mobitv.com/do/channelLineup;jsessionid=BE34EAEEF67FFF7D5047611139B97E79) that's offered through MobiTV despite it's limited channel lineup. I gave it a shot back when it first launched because I don't have cable and wanted to be able to watch live news. I canceled it a day later.

[bdj21ya]

Sounds exciting to me. I'd love to cut my cable bill if someone could offer a reasonable replacement.

[wyatt23]

are you seriously quoting an engadget rumor again? come on!!! Engadget is a total joke. I wouldn't read any truth into anything they say anymore.:mad:

1. engadget [and gizmodo] is such a fun read. the articles are hilarious and the gadget pr0n is unparallelled.

2. you're on a RUMORS forum, so for lack of better comeback: shut up? :p

3. it's incredibly fun to talk and speculate about products that aren't going to bring in pissed off poster's talking about how mac mini's don't have dedicated graphics cards. this is all in good fun and no one but you complained about it.

if you're going to complain about reading technology rumor websites then go somewhere else... ya know... perhaps not dedicated to techology rumors.

[atszyman]

The second is how to handle live TV, this could solve the second scenario.

I prefer not having a recorder in the Apple TV, go buy an Elgato device for your Mac and your good to go as far as that is concerned.

DVR, while pretty awesome, isn't the killer feature. live tv is. though, i do have xbox, so when that comes out, i will absolutely buy iptv. though, i'm a fanboy and anti-MS, so i'd rather go with the "just works" mentality over the "we'll spend any amount of money to get your money" mentality.

with that said, i still love my 360.

Can you explain why live TV is the killer app? Most people already have cable/satellite and a box to decode it. More and more of these systems are also adding on demand content, and many offer a single box with built in DVR.

Are you advocating the :apple:TV replace my cable box as the cable tuner? I'd then need a separate DVR and Apple would probably be stuck with a limited choice in who your cable provider could be (think Cingular and the iPhone).

Of course it's all a moot point on my end anyway since I don't have any HD TVs in the house (yet).

[wyatt23]

We provide our customers with Motorola VIP boxes currently (non-PVR, but that will change this summer) with component, composite and HDMI connections. Yes, it is Ethernet in. CAT5 is required for the 10/100 network although in our new developments as well as fibre we're starting to run CAT7 as well - it only make sense.

if apple were to implement something like this, would 802.11n be sufficient enough if someone didn't want to connect via ethernet?

[Porchland]

You know, the one thing that holds me back from going the AppleTV route and ditching cable tv is the lack of live content. I can't do without sports (which in my area are all on cable-only channels) and local news.

Wouldn't it be great to subscribe to a limited number of "live" channels? Say ESPN, your local TV networks, NESN, etc.


:apple:TV = cable killer.

I thought that during the keynote when Steve Jobs unveiled it because cable is such a big target, the networks are looking for ways to recoup lost advertising dollars from declining ratings, and Apple has content relationships. It looks like a pretty good bet now.

AT&T will either have to untangle from Direct TV or figure out a way for Direct TV to co-exist with Apple.

EDIT:

And Napster, good grief. I'm sure AT&T has already taken steps to dump that deal.

[wyatt23]

Can you explain why live TV is the killer app? Most people already have cable/satellite and a box to decode it. More and more of these systems are also adding on demand content, and many offer a single box with built in DVR.

Are you advocating the :apple:TV replace my cable box as the cable tuner? I'd then need a separate DVR and Apple would probably be stuck with a limited choice in who your cable provider could be (think Cingular and the iPhone).

Of course it's all a moot point on my end anyway since I don't have any HD TVs in the house (yet).

it's the killer feature to me because like chrisgeleven i'm big on sports. i also really watch adult swim. i'd like to cut all ties with cable providers, plus i live at two houses... one at school and one at home 250 miles apart. i'd love to just buy internet and have a cellphone... [preferably an iphone and IPTV from at&t:D ].. plug it in and anywhere i have internet, i have live tv.

that's my killer feature. DVR is cool, really cool, but it's not a necessity to me. i'd rather a DVD player in :apple: TV than DVR. though that's a moot point as well.

if apple were to add dvr functionality later on, that'd be swell, and i'd use it alot... but right now DVR is just another service i have to pay for, when i could just watch tv as i usually do.

[Porchland]

Are you advocating the :apple:TV replace my cable box as the cable tuner? I'd then need a separate DVR and Apple would probably be stuck with a limited choice in who your cable provider could be (think Cingular and the iPhone).


You would not need the DVR if :apple:TV allowed you to watch on demand the things that you would have recorded. A lot of the not-unless-there's-a-DVR comments don't take into account that Apple may have something better up its sleeve.

Why DVR this week's episode of "Desperate Housewives" if you can just pull up ABC on :apple:TV and play it?

[wyatt23]

SWEET! a dream come true... i submitted an internet story that made the front page of my favorite website! all while at work.... i can't wait to tell mom. lol

[~Shard~]

if apple were to implement something like this, would 802.11n be sufficient enough if someone didn't want to connect via ethernet?

In theory, yes. 802.11n is supposed to be able to deliver sustained rates of 100-200 Mbps, peak rates of 540 Mbps and a theoretical top rate of around 600 MBps last I heard. This is either planned or in theory though - the technology is still in its infancy in many respects, so just keep that in mind.

[zioxide]

this would make appletv useful.

[kalisphoenix]

this would make appletv useful.

Hahaha! Almost word-for-word with something I posted in another thread. Great minds think alike 8)

[Ha ze]

Honestly, I have one service with comcast and thats cable.
everything else, home phone, internet, and cell are all At&t.
Without a doubt we'd be dropping comcast in favor of doing this, then also probably buying a couple more :apple: TV's for the house

[gphoto]

this would make appletv useful.

Exactly, and I might actually consider buying it.

[~Shard~]

Exactly, and I might actually consider buying it.

I would definitely have to re-evaluate my current stance on the AppleTV as well if something like this became a reality, but I'm still not sure if I'd buy one... Regardless, I'm very curious to see how this product evolves and how successful it becomes.

[alywa]

If this rumor is true, this could be huge. Cable Co's are among the most reviled in any industry, because they are basically a monopoly in any given area. Where I live, I have the choice between crappy local cable (horrible service, no HD, very limited line-up, no on-demand, expensive, etc), or satellite. I chose DirecTV, but at close to $100/month, it is pricey (granted, I get a really sweet package, HD, HBO, etc).

I'd love to be able to drop it entirely, and an a la carte plan (ie channel subscriptions), and augment with iTMS purchases.

You have to imagine that MS is working on a similar plan with their XBox 360 environment, and I'm sure Google is going to do something with all that dark fiber they own.

I'd be very, very nervous if I was in the cable business.

[atszyman]

You would not need the DVR if :apple:TV allowed you to watch on demand the things that you would have recorded. A lot of the not-unless-there's-a-DVR comments don't take into account that Apple may have something better up its sleeve.

Why DVR this week's episode of "Desperate Housewives" if you can just pull up ABC on :apple:TV and play it?

Can't you already download Desperate Housewives in iTunes and watch it on your :apple:TV?

it's the killer feature to me because like chrisgeleven i'm big on sports. i also really watch adult swim. i'd like to cut all ties with cable providers, plus i live at two houses... one at school and one at home 250 miles apart. i'd love to just buy internet and have a cellphone... [preferably an iphone and IPTV from at&t:D ].. plug it in and anywhere i have internet, i have live tv.

that's my killer feature. DVR is cool, really cool, but it's not a necessity to me. i'd rather a DVD player in :apple: TV than DVR. though that's a moot point as well.

if apple were to add dvr functionality later on, that'd be swell, and i'd use it alot... but right now DVR is just another service i have to pay for, when i could just watch tv as i usually do.

So you're basically advocating all broadcasters make all their shows available via iTunes in as little time as possible?

While a cool idea it smacks of the a la carte cable companies that many people would like to see where you can select only the channels you want to watch and pay only for a few channels rather than the 100+ you have to buy now. For the moment Apple would be better off with a good sized HD and the ability to DVR live TV to avoid having to deal with the wrath of the cable companies. What do you think would happen if Cable companies viewed :apple:TV as a threat? Do you think we'd still see any network TV shows in iTunes? Most networks would rip their content from iTunes immediately since the bulk of their distribution is through the cable providers not Apple.

[Westside guy]

It'd be interesting to see how Comcast would react if I dropped their cable TV but kept their internet service... would my IP TV feed get de-prioritized? :rolleyes:

This'd be great because, unlike with music, most of us really do want a subscription service to browse what's on TV since that's what we're all used to. I just can't see making the current iTunes television model my sole source for TV content.

This is another reason net neutrality is a good thing, IMO.

[bigmc6000]

As a recently new subscriber to AT&T UVerse I can tell you it works just as well as cable. When they installed the service I've got 21Mbps going to my DVR and 6 Mbps for my internet. Now what's interesting is that the technician also told me I've got capability up to 60 Mbps!!! 60?!?! Just for interest purposes 21Mbps is enough for 2 HD streams or 4 SD streams.

I'm not sure how much they'd charge or whatever but the current UVerse pricing is very competitive and, at least for me, quite cheaper than the equivalent cable offer.

[VideoFreek]

You would not need the DVR if :apple:TV allowed you to watch on demand the things that you would have recorded. A lot of the not-unless-there's-a-DVR comments don't take into account that Apple may have something better up its sleeve. Precisely. Its funny how much difficulty people have letting go of old paradigms, isn't it? IPTV essentially will move the DVR functionality to the server side. Events (e.g., sports) can be streamed "live" over the internet, and simultaneously stored on the server for later viewing on-demand.

The other intriguing potential of IPTV is that it can free us from the monopoly/ duopoly of our local cable/ sat providers. Imagine being able to select content from dozens or hundreds of providers around the world! You no longer would be limited to what the cable or sat provider chooses to carry, and you could potentially pay only for what you actually watch.

[natejohnstone@g]

It would SOOO rule if I was able to ditch my cable company alltogether in favor of an internet TV option.
If they can make it fully digital, have all the HD options, and easy to use, then they can have something that will totally take over the industry. It will take a couple years to get there, I'm sure, but this is very exciting!

[williedigital]

This'd be great because, unlike with music, most of us really do want a subscription service to browse what's on TV since that's what we're all used to. I just can't see making the current iTunes television model my sole source for TV content.


Na yo, the internet is killing television among the young. They still watch the same number of hours, but they do internet at the same time, and internet is increasingly taking up the majority of their attention.

[gphoto]

I would definitely have to re-evaluate my current stance on the AppleTV as well if something like this became a reality, but I'm still not sure if I'd buy one... Regardless, I'm very curious to see how this product evolves and how successful it becomes.

It just keeps getting better and better, with YouTube, probable HD content on iTunes, then maybe IPTV. Obviously, many people are not satisfied with the ATV now, but after a few more rounds of upgrades, it will be pretty sweet, and many more people will be satisfied enough to buy.

Edit: Actually, none of these upgrades have actually happened yet, but are either likely or confirmed.

[williedigital]

The other intriguing potential of IPTV is that it can free us from the monopoly/ duopoly of our local cable/ sat providers. Imagine being able to select content from dozens or hundreds of providers around the world! You no longer would be limited to what the cable or sat provider chooses to carry, and you could potentially pay only for what you actually watch.

But who would provide the hookup at your house? You'd still pay comcast for the data over the coax.

[jessetechie]

Not to toot my own horn, but this all sounds very familiar to a comment I wrote on Wired's Cult of Mac blog just over a year ago, when the rumors were flying about Apple's "Tivo Killer".

http://blog.wired.com/cultofmac/2006/03/dont_hold_your_.html#comment-23572329

It only makes sense that the live streams and the video-on-demand would be provided by Apple's new friend, AT&T.

[VideoFreek]

Most networks would rip their content from iTunes immediately since the bulk of their distribution is through the cable providers not Apple.Ahhh, just like the record companies ripped their content from iTunes since the bulk of their distribution is through retailers and Amazon?

I don't think so. What the networks would looove to do is "monetize" every viewing by charging a per-view fee, and IPTV would enable such a business model. They'd also regain value that is today captured by the cable companies, by adopting essentially a direct-to-consumer model. If consumer acceptance is there, the networks will be all over this, because they'll see the chance to make more money.

[~Shard~]

It only makes sense that the live streams and the video-on-demand would be provided by Apple's new friend, AT&T.

And subsequently tied into the iPhone as well... :D ;)

[atszyman]

Precisely. Its funny how much difficulty people have letting go of old paradigms, isn't it? IPTV essentially will move the DVR functionality to the server side. Events (e.g., sports) can be streamed "live" over the internet, and simultaneously stored on the server for later viewing on-demand.

The other intriguing potential of IPTV is that it can free us from the monopoly/ duopoly of our local cable/ sat providers. Imagine being able to select content from dozens or hundreds of providers around the world! You no longer would be limited to what the cable or sat provider chooses to carry, and you could potentially pay only for what you actually watch.

IPTV can do what you're talking about but from what I've seen, they currently just provide another alternative for a subscription to a "package" of channels that is an alternative to satellite or cable and your still tied to region of service and available connection technology so it's not any more portable than my satellite service. This may change eventually, I just don't necessarily see it happening in the near future.

[VideoFreek]

But who would provide the hookup at your house? You'd still pay comcast for the data over the coax.Correct, which is why net neutrality is absolutely crucial, as another poster pointed out. Some other points are that Comcast, Cox, Time-Warner, etc. do have some competition to contend with (Verizon fios for example), and if they attempt to somehow interfere with IPTV, they'll get their butts sued off.

They really are facing a threat here, and I'm sure this issue is occupying their strategists right now.

[atszyman]

Ahhh, just like the record companies ripped their content from iTunes since the bulk of their distribution is through retailers and Amazon?

I don't think so. What the networks would looove to do is "monetize" every viewing by charging a per-view fee, and IPTV would enable such a business model. They'd also regain value that is today captured by the cable companies, by adopting essentially a direct-to-consumer model. If consumer acceptance is there, the networks will be all over this, because they'll see the chance to make more money.

But there are still plenty of people who want the physical media for their music and there are too many retailers selling the CDs for one threat to unite them. I can buy CDS from about 50 stores in a 10 mile radius from my house, I can only get one cable provider or the 2 satellite providers which makes them more powerful, recent consolidations in cable providers only makes the few left more powerful.

Cable companies are few and very monopolistic in many regions. A situation where a cable company feels threatened by an a la carte service that would allow people only to get the shows they want for cheaper than the cable subscription could lead to threats of cutting networks from the service and massive losses in ad revenue.

[adamcz]

The best imagineable feature for me would be the ability to subscribe to NBA league pass with no extra fees. I currently pay $200 a year for league pass, which I feel is a good deal, but I also have to pay at least $20 a month on top of that to have a cable box and the most basic cable package. You can't get league pass without paying those other fees.

If I could pay $5 a month per channel to subscribe to other channels, that would also be pretty cool. ESPN and TNT for me, three or four channels for my wife, and I'm still paying way less than a standard cable package while getting everything I want.

Get er done Apple!

[Object-X]

If you ask me there are only two things stopping the :apple: TV from taking off. The first is the lack of HD content. When you can buy HD Movies and TV shows off iTunes that will be huge. The second is how to handle live TV, this could solve the second scenario.

I prefer not having a recorder in the Apple TV, go buy an Elgato device for your Mac and your good to go as far as that is concerned.

I think the lack of a rental service is also preventing wide adoption. Buying movies is ok for some, but I for one don't really want to own and manage all that data for a movie I'll watch maybe once or twice. Add HD 720p rentals and Apple can give Blockbuster and Netflix a run for their money.

[VideoFreek]

Cable companies are few and very monopolistic in many regions. A situation where a cable company feels threatened by an a la carte service that would allow people only to get the shows they want for cheaper than the cable subscription could lead to threats of cutting networks from the service and massive losses in ad revenue.atszyman, concerning your last two posts, I do agree with you that the entrenched interests, particularly "Big Cable," will try to throw up every obstacle they can think of. On the other hand, US and European law does favor competition, so the authorities will tolerate their efforts only to a point. For me, the vision of accessing subscribed or purchased content, from any provider in the world, anywhere in the world, is just too compelling to be ignored. This must be the future. It's just going to take us years to get there.

[mchristopherson]

I would switch in a second. This is what I want, of course I would have to buy a HD tv and Apple TV... hum... $1400 dollors laters, maybe I will stick with what I have right now.

[atszyman]

atszyman, concerning your last two posts, I do agree with you that the entrenched interests, particularly "Big Cable," will try to throw up every obstacle they can think of. On the other hand, US and European law does favor competition, so the authorities will tolerate their efforts only to a point. For me, the vision of accessing subscribed or purchased content, from any provider in the world, anywhere in the world, is just too compelling to be ignored. This must be the future. It's just going to take us years to get there.

I agree that eventually we will get to the point of the content being available whenever/whereever you want as long as you have an internet connection. It only makes sense, and I'd love to see it.

I just don't see it being a good thing for the :apple:TV right now. As of right now if they want penetration DVR is probably the biggest selling point they could add. A simple box with a Hard Drive that you're hooking to your TV and you can't manage to get the shows from your current provider (that you are paying) onto it without paying for them again.

With DVR functionality people would not have to change their current viewing habits and the benefits of being able to get their iTunes content to the :apple:TV would add to the enticement. The small form factor would also allow for portability of the shows you've recorded so you can take them on the road and watch them elsewhere, and instead of adding a box to their TV it could be a replacement for their current DVR (as long as they don't have it integrated into their cable/satellite box, it does put them up against TiVo and other DVR sellers but they don't have the power to stop Apple like the cable giants would.

[tribulation]

This is the only useful thing I have seen for the iTV. I'd never touch the thing without something like this the makes it equivalent to cable tv. Add on the features of the iTV now PLUS that and I would be sold. Otherwise the thing is pointless in my opinion.

[tribulation]

I might add to my last post, if it's not a set fee aka: subscription based [1 price for unlimited amount of x channels type of thing], that brings it back to the useless category. If they charge a per feed or per show or per-anything fee, bye bye, no go. I'm not opening up my bank account each time I want to watch some random show, give me a bunch for a set price and you'll have it.

[GregA]

I just don't see it being a good thing for the :apple:TV right now. As of right now if they want penetration DVR is probably the biggest selling point they could add.
I'd like to see a DVR. I suspect Elgato is working on a little box to sit under an AppleTV that records TV and then shares it to the AppleTV - though I'd prefer integration.

Anyway, yesterday at D, Steve said Bill Gates was good at making deals with people. This may be such an example. And this is a good thing!

IPTV is such a broad term - it's anything to do with TV sent over the internet. We have no idea what they actually mean. Apple could offer AT&T's PPV films via AppleTV (just on AT&T connections, or US-wide?), it could offer the whole cable package live (US-wide?). It could allow PVR capability on the above. Who knows.

ps.
Apple's HD codec allows a low res version to be interlaced with a HD version. Imagine if you could watch any show (lower res) live on any DSL connection (at the quality level your DSL can handle), but if you record the show it will "upgrade" (or "error correct") to full HD quality in the background while you sleep. Apple's HD stuff can NOT do this at present... just wondering about possibilities.

[GregA]

i thought that uverse tv needed a decoder box between the network connection and your tube which also includes a hd for tivo like functionality. why would att let an appleTV decode their proprietary packets? :confused: Why wouldn't AT&T want its decoding technology on existing boxes, if it sells its subscription and/or ppvs? (provided it can keep the technology safe).

[VideoFreek]

As of right now if they want penetration DVR is probably the biggest selling point they could add. A simple box with a Hard Drive that you're hooking to your TV and you can't manage to get the shows from your current provider (that you are paying) onto it without paying for them again. I'm certainly no expert in this area, but I think this would be way too complicated and costly in that they'd need to find a way to work with OTA broadcast, cable, and satellite. Essentially, they'd need to replicate what Tivo does (with all the attendant cost). AND, bear in mind the :apple: TV is a worldwide product--I'm pretty sure the box I bought here in Germany is the same box you buy in the US, save for the power cord. Getting a DVR to work with all terrestrial, cable and satellite systems worldwide is a feat not even Tivo manages (they presently only support the USA and the UK, and if you check out Tivo's UK site to see what a suckfest it is to get their box working with the Sky satellite service, you begin to appreciate the complexity). I just don't think DVR is economically or technically viable for a worldwide product.

[EagerDragon]

If they're going to offer TV over the net, why not try to partner with Joost as well?

Well I just stoped by Joost site and they currently do not support the PPC Mac but do support the Intel Mac, so putting it on the Apple tv should not be a big deal.

too bad about the PPC, that is all I have.

[EagerDragon]

what kind of box do you need with your service? do you know any of the inner workings of the device, and connections? i.e. ethernet in -> composite-, s-video-, dvi-, out

We are here to discuss rumors, there is a difference between rumors and facts.

Who cares if it is true or not?
The fun is in the discucion of the possibilites and how we would take advantage of it if the rumor was true.

[ajhill]

How about Apple TV cutting into the 26 billion dollar DVD market.

Can anyone say Apple TV streaming HD movie RENTALS (say goodnight Blockbuster, Netflix)!

Here is the story:

Deutsche Bank: Apple TV Will Cannibalize a Good Chunk of the DVD Market
Thursday May 31, 5:16 pm ET

FP Trading Desk submits: Apple Inc. (NasdaqGS: AAPL - News) will cannibalize a good chunk of the US$26-billion DVD player market in the next several years, according to Deutsche Bank. One of the primary drivers of this change will be the availability of YouTube content on Apple TV.

In the long term, the firm thinks Apple is “positioned to introduce a compelling integrated home media infrastructure solution,” while the YouTube addition is expected to increase the appeal of Apple TV to users.

“We expect Apple to continue adding video content (TV, movies, etc) to iTunes/Apple TV further increasing its appeal,” Deutsche Bank said in a note to clients.

The firm has a “buy” rating on the stock, while its US$140 price target represents upside of roughly 15%.



Bigger 160gb HD -> High Definition content is coming soon.
IPTV/Internet Streaming -> Online movie rentals direct to your HDTV. Can you say $.99 movie rental with out waiting for the mail, OR driving to BB to return a movie. (have you seen the price of gas?)

Apple ][ Forvever!

Al

[EagerDragon]

In theory, yes. 802.11n is supposed to be able to deliver sustained rates of 100-200 Mbps, peak rates of 540 Mbps and a theoretical top rate of around 600 MBps last I heard. This is either planned or in theory though - the technology is still in its infancy in many respects, so just keep that in mind.

Ok but what about the ISP connection? What is the min needed to support say .... 3 people using this service (different channels) in a household at the same time?

[Tara Davis]

Sounds exciting to me. I'd love to cut my cable bill if someone could offer a reasonable replacement.

Here you go! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yagi_antenna)

With a simple roof antenna and EyeTV, I get 17 digital channels (not counting the weather-only channels and space-holders for future programming) from my modest suburb in the midwest.

This season, I PRV'd "House", "Lost" and "Heroes" in high-def, along with tons of sporting events including football every Sunday afternoon. All HD.

Best of all...

... wait for it...

all FREE!!!

The few shows not broadcast, such as Doctor Who and the Sopranos, I am able to grab torr... er... umm... I mean get on DVD from NetFlix. So I'm really not missing out on anything by not having cable.

Paying for TV content is for sucka's.

[~Shard~]

Ok but what about the ISP connection? What is the min needed to support say .... 3 people using this service (different channels) in a household at the same time?

In our case right now we're delivering 16 Mbps to the home via ADSL 2+ which supports 3 TVs, one of which can be HD. When we move to VDSL2 this fall we'll be delivering 40 Mbps to the home via dual access which will support 2 high def streams, approximately 5-6 TVs and then your Internet service as well.

Of course if you were currently one of our FFTH trial subscribers you wouldn't have that problem at all. :D :cool:

[The Toon Master]

Ugh, i can't decide if i'm gonna get an apple tv with this and the new 160GB one that could drive current one down in price..

Anybody know estimation on price? I would love to do that on my tv..

[whatever]

Well with the addition of YouTube to the :apple:tv, it seems more likely now.

No, he said that currently it's more more of a hobby product than a consumer product. Much the way the iPod was.

I personally just ordered my first Apple TV three weeks ago (on a whim I went into a Tweeter and ended up spending over $13,000 or my new system!) and at the last minute ditched the Pioneer Elite DVD player for the Apple TV. And tomorrow I'm ordering the 160GB version and returning the 40GB.

The similaries between the iPod and Apple TV are unbelievable. People are aware of it (like the orginal 5GB iPod) and are very curious about it.

The YouTube announcement is huge and I wouldn't be surprised if Apple releases some very suprising numbers to us next quarter. Remember the kids latched on to the iPod because it allowed them to listen to "free" music, well now Apple TV will allow them to watch "free" video.

I wouldn't be surprised if the "live" TV component is brought to us via AT&T.

[whatever]

I agree that eventually we will get to the point of the content being available whenever/whereever you want as long as you have an internet connection. It only makes sense, and I'd love to see it.

I just don't see it being a good thing for the :apple:TV right now. As of right now if they want penetration DVR is probably the biggest selling point they could add. A simple box with a Hard Drive that you're hooking to your TV and you can't manage to get the shows from your current provider (that you are paying) onto it without paying for them again.

With DVR functionality people would not have to change their current viewing habits and the benefits of being able to get their iTunes content to the :apple:TV would add to the enticement. The small form factor would also allow for portability of the shows you've recorded so you can take them on the road and watch them elsewhere, and instead of adding a box to their TV it could be a replacement for their current DVR (as long as they don't have it integrated into their cable/satellite box, it does put them up against TiVo and other DVR sellers but they don't have the power to stop Apple like the cable giants would.
The Apple TV does not need a DVR in my opinion. Like the iPod, Apple TV's universe revolves around iTunes, which sits on your PC (either Windows Based or Mac).

By not including a DVR in Apple TV, Apple is providing an opportunity to developers. A developer can create an application which does the DVR function for your family and then pass the content on to iTunes which will allow it to be served up on any iTunes enabled computer (with Share on) and any Apple TV in the house.

Can you imagine a house with multiple Apple TV's sharing content from a central place instead of wasting storage space by having it on every device. How about a Dormitory? Imagine that, one computer could be used to serve content for the entire hall (or dorm).

Don't get me wrong, I love my DVR, but if I want to watch content from room to room, it's not easy to do that, unless, I have save my favorite programs on all of the DVRs (and then I have to manage all of them too, I know that sounds easy, but I travel a lot for work, so when I come back I have to delete a lot of crap!).

Now let's take this one step further. By doing this management work on a computer, we would be able to share Planned Program Record Lists with others and maybe even share episodes with others. These are things that a DVR cannot do.

My master plan is to rip all of my DVDs onto Hard Disc and then make them available via Apple TV, creating my own On Demand system.

[twoodcc]

seems like a nice idea. would be nice to see this happen

[Swift]

I just switched from DSL to cable -- much faster -- but I had to sign a contract for a year. Two days later, while cancelling the DSL, I hear that, as of May 1, they've rolled out U-Verse in my area. Fiber optic to the door, 6 Mb/s, and cable TV. Drat!

Now imagine downloading a show at that speed.

[williedigital]

The best imagineable feature for me would be the ability to subscribe to NBA league pass with no extra fees. I currently pay $200 a year for league pass, which I feel is a good deal, but I also have to pay at least $20 a month on top of that to have a cable box and the most basic cable package. You can't get league pass without paying those other fees.
Get er done Apple!

This would be ideal for me too. The only thing I even own a TV for is watching the NBA, and would love to just have an extensive nba lineup rather than the paltry televised games on espn, etc.

[bigmc6000]

I just switched from DSL to cable -- much faster -- but I had to sign a contract for a year. Two days later, while cancelling the DSL, I hear that, as of May 1, they've rolled out U-Verse in my area. Fiber optic to the door, 6 Mb/s, and cable TV. Drat!

Now imagine downloading a show at that speed.

That's exactly what I have - they also bump the uploading speed to 1Mbps when you get UVerse - that's made a noticeable difference when uploading my photos.

[~Shard~]

I just switched from DSL to cable -- much faster -- but I had to sign a contract for a year. Two days later, while cancelling the DSL, I hear that, as of May 1, they've rolled out U-Verse in my area. Fiber optic to the door, 6 Mb/s, and cable TV. Drat!

Now imagine downloading a show at that speed.

If they've rolled out FTTH then you should be seeing a lot more than 6 Mbps. As I previously said, we're currently delivering roughly 16 Mbps to the home and we will soon be doing 40 Mbps, all utilizing DSL technology with 800-900m loop lengths. Our FFTH trial customers receive approximately 100 Mbps to their home via GPON, and that's based off a 24 or 32 split from the OLT - technically we're delivering 2.6-3.2 Gbps to each node...

6 Mbps over fibre?! Man, are they ever short-changing their customers! :p :D :cool:

[danielwsmithee]

Can you explain why live TV is the killer app? Most people already have cable/satellite and a box to decode it. More and more of these systems are also adding on demand content, and many offer a single box with built in DVR.

Are you advocating the :apple:TV replace my cable box as the cable tuner? I'd then need a separate DVR and Apple would probably be stuck with a limited choice in who your cable provider could be (think Cingular and the iPhone).

Of course it's all a moot point on my end anyway since I don't have any HD TVs in the house (yet).That is exactly what I am saying. There are many people out there that are not willing to pay the outrageous cable/satellite TV fees. I would love it if all I needed was an Apple TV and an internet connection. No need for Cable TV or satellite.

I currently have cable internet, and basic over-the-air channels (which is free with cable internet), because I can't see paying the outrageous prices they are asking for TV service. I would watch maybe 3-4 channels, and they want $40 for analog cable let alone the price for digital HD cable.

[danielwsmithee]

If they've rolled out FTTH then you should be seeing a lot more than 6 Mbps. As I previously said, we're currently delivering roughly 16 Mbps to the home and we will soon be doing 40 Mbps, all utilizing DSL technology with 800-900m loop lengths. Our FFTH trial customers receive approximately 100 Mbps to their home via GPON, and that's based off a 24 or 32 split from the OLT - technically we're delivering 2.6-3.2 Gbps to each node...

6 Mbps over fibre?! Man, are they ever short-changing their customers! :p :D :cool:I get 8Mbps over cable. Fiber should be at least 10 times that otherwise what is the point.

[wyatt23]

We are here to discuss rumors, there is a difference between rumors and facts.

Who cares if it is true or not?
The fun is in the discucion of the possibilites and how we would take advantage of it if the rumor was true.

i was asking about a service that is already implemented at one of our fellow MR member's company. bc if their settop box can take in ethernet... and puts out through DVI/HDMI [or anything really]... then....

ut oh... what do we have here on the back on the :apple: TV... looks like an ethernet input and hdmi out...

meaning... if apple already has the hardware set up to do it, then this is nothing more than a system update before the rumor is a reality.


i wasn't talking about apple's service. read the posts before that.

[~Shard~]

I get 8Mbps over cable. Fiber should be at least 10 times that otherwise what is the point.

Precisely - as I said, we're delivering 100Mbps and could easily deliver more if we chose. Then it comes down to the customer's home network though - most home networks still utilize CAT5 cabling throughout. For our new builds though, along with fibre we're implementing CAT7. :cool:

[Porshuh944turbo]

Anyways, back to the article... the only strange thing in the whole idea is that Microsoft developed the IPTV software that runs on the U-Verse STBs as well as all the backend server-side software. Would the MS client software be loaded on the Apple TV to run the EPG and all the client software? I find that hard to believe. The only way I see this happening is if Apple is allowed to create their own client software and EPG guide that fits in with the Apple TV gui look. Afterall, it's just data from the server, much like a webpage (the EPG).

This is not too hard to believe I guess, after seeing Steve and Bill on stage together at D the other day -- and when Steve was talking about the Client side software on the iPhone that interfaces with Google Maps, he was boasting how great their team has done with the Client and how Apple is so good at doing that sort of thing.. He also said something to the effect of "no one made Google Maps look as good as we did, and we used the same backend that Google and everyone else uses... even Google was amazed at how good it looked... " So, could they do the same with the MS backbone stuff and make a better client for Apple TV? Yes. But, it would have to be a partnership with AT&T and Microsoft.

Very interesting..... very very interesting.